Jay Warmke

Jay Warmke

About the Influencer
Jay Warmke is the author of numerous green technology books and has developed renewable energy curricula for numerous colleges and universities across North America as the owner of Solar PV Training LLC.

He has served as vice president of the board of directors of Green Energy Ohio and as president of the International Certification and Accreditation Council. In 2015, he was elected to ETA’s Board of Directors and for the past 11 years has served as Chair of the Renewable Energy Committee. He also hosts a weekly show/podcast called Solar Noon Tuesday, which is syndicated with the Pacifica Network and posted weekly on YouTube.

1. On the question of DIY Solar: how would you compare the good of opening the majority of the population to rooftop solar access vs. the bad of lost installer jobs?

There is, of course, room for DIY in our industry. Balcony Solar is just a first glimmer of the potential within that sector.

Most home and business owners will never tackle a solar project. But those who wish to should be nurtured and supported. I would love to see the expansion of “solar barn raising” projects – where groups of people support each other by helping with installations on each other’s sites and benefiting from volume purchases.

Solar installers can certainly find a market in serving as expert consultants or project overseers on DIY projects – expanding their reach into a customer base which might never otherwise install solar due to high costs.

2. What is your comment on the fact that 70% of the cost of rooftop solar in the U.S. in 2026 is neither labor nor equipment but rather soft costs?

If the solar industry built cars, we would custom design each vehicle, apply for permits and patents on a case-by-case basis, and then wonder why people can’t afford to buy them. We, as an industry, need to move from a “high-margin/low-volume” business model to a “high-volume/low-margin” model.

If we reduced our costs to $1/W (as in Australia), we would not need high customer acquisition costs (they would beat a path to our doors). Full adoption of SolarAPP+ permitting would cut time and costs in permitting.

I think there is also room for pre-designed solar package options that would cut design and installation time and work for a large number (not all of course) of homes and businesses.

3. What does a “mature” solar market look like to you in 10–15 years, and what are we currently getting wrong about that trajectory?

Several trends are converging that will remake the way we view energy. First is the tsunami of load demand that will hit us over the next few years (data centers, electric vehicles, cryptocurrency, electrification of heat, electrification of industry, climate change).

The net result of higher load demand, slow generation expansion, a glacial regulatory process, and resistant/greedy utilities will inevitably result in dramatically higher electric prices and diminishing grid reliability.

Currently, over half of new solar installations include battery backup (as storage prices fall dramatically). 2026 is shaping up to be the year bidirectional EV charging becomes a reality. Soon many will simply view the grid as a backup power system. It is a very short step to disconnect altogether if utilities continue to make it difficult to do business with them.

I think we will see dramatic grid defection over the coming years as customers find they can provide energy for themselves at costs that are lower and reliability that is higher than can be delivered by utilities.

4. How do you see the balance evolving between federal incentives and local control in accelerating deployment?

It is my view that normal government policy can only accelerate or retard the adoption of a technology for a short period of time. Government can tinker around the edges – but it is economics that will ultimately determine winners and losers.

Solar, for the foreseeable future, is simply the lowest-cost form of energy available on the planet. In generating electricity, it is half the cost of methane (natural gas), one third the cost of coal, and a fraction of the cost of nuclear. Its only close competitor is wind energy (which depends on an adequate wind resource).

Governmental incentives, when working as designed, are put in place to allow a nascent technology the breathing space to compete with more entrenched technologies. Solar is now past that phase in our development. We should no longer rely on incentives to compete. We just need to convince all those “free market” politicians to stop subsidizing fossil fuels.

5. What technical breakthrough would actually change the game, versus just incrementally improving it?

I am tempted to say true bidirectional EV charging – which expands storage capacity and affordability dramatically. Imagine a college campus where every parking space is a battery and the campus has a virtual power plant in every parking lot.

But I think a more transformative innovation will be the evolution of energy as a service. One day we shall see energy, not sold in kWhs or gallons of gasoline, but as services that simply incorporate the energy they use as part of that service. When you subscribe to Netflix, you are buying bandwidth – but you don’t pay for the bandwidth; you pay for entertainment.

We are beginning to see the first glimmers of this transformation. In Texas, you can now subscribe to a battery backup for your home. You pay $29 per month (or whatever the cost from whatever vendor you choose), and they install a battery at your home. They make their profit by aggregating the thousands of batteries now connected to the grid as a virtual power plant that can sell power to the grid during moments of peak load demand. This is largely transparent to the homeowner – who has no up-front costs and pays a monthly fee, so they have power in the event that the grid goes down.

The grid will survive not because it is the best way to distribute power. That
is no longer the case. In 2026, solar+storage is cheaper than continuing to buy power from your local utility. It will survive because it has found a way to profitably market energy services that depend on customers being connected together within an energy network.

6. How do you see ownership structures (utility-scale, distributed, cooperative) evolving over the next decade?

I believe that within 15 years the largest provider of electricity in the nation will be a virtual utility. The hyperscalers of the world (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, etc) are fast becoming the largest consumers of electricity. They will soon find it profitable to vertically integrate power generation and distribution for their own operations (cutting out developers and utilities). They will quickly become the largest distributors of power to third parties as well, selling excess power at retail (not net-metered wholesale).

Apple, for example, could create the “I-Power” network where they leverage their grid access to facilitate transactions between solar owners (who are tired of getting ripped off by utilities with ever lower net-metering compensation) and potential power customers who can purchase this net-metered power at a fraction of the cost that utilities charge.

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required that the Bell system lease their physical local distribution network to competitors. This led directly to the rapid expansion of the Internet.

A similar ruling for similar reasons might find that the regulated utility power grid gets a much-needed disruption from Silicon Valley – creating a system of connected energy services that fully accommodate virtual utilities, virtual power plants, micro-grids, and data-over-powerline services that transform our electrical system in a way that the Internet and wireless transformed telephony over the past few decades.

The regulated utilities cannot compete with Silicon Valley, but they will not go away. They will simply be relegated to the role of “maintainers of wire.”

7. Most overrated buzzword in clean energy?

“Payback period.“ Power is a forever cost. The price of electricity from solar should be compared with the cost of electricity from other sources – not some theoretical (and generally mythical) date when your electricity
will be free.

Mary Ellen Barker

Mary Ellen Barker

About the Influencer
Mary Ellen Barker is Co-Founder and CEO of Solar Land Agent, LLC, a woman-owned renewable energy firm specializing in solar and BESS site selection. Raised on a Georgia family farm, she brings experience in agriculture, business, and real estate to help developers and landowners create successful projects. She serves on the ASES Board of Directors and advocates for responsible renewable energy development, land stewardship, and meaningful community engagement.

1. On the question of DIY Solar: how would you compare the benefits of opening the majority of the population to rooftop solar access to the drawbacks of lost installer jobs?

I see DIY rooftop solar as an opportunity to make clean energy more affordable and accessible for American families. As electricity demand continues to rise, success should not be based on who does the installation. It should be about expanding solar adoption while maintaining high standards and supporting a skilled workforce. We should look for every responsible way to increase access to rooftop solar. Experienced installers will always be essential because structural integrity, electrical work, permitting, inspections, and utility interconnection require expertise. Innovation and expertise can work hand in hand.

2. What is your comment on the fact that 70% of the cost of rooftop solar in the U.S. in 2026 is neither labor nor equipment but rather soft costs?

Rooftop solar has higher soft costs because of its business model. Every installation is unique, with different structural, electrical engineering, design, permitting, inspection, and local labor requirements. Most homeowners also finance their systems, adding underwriting, lender, and dealer fees. Customer acquisition is expensive, often $3,000 to $5,000, due to door-to-door marketing, digital advertising, outbound sales, and commissions. Residential installers also carry overhead for vehicles, insurance, office space, and operating systems.
By comparison, utility-scale projects benefit from economies of scale, keeping soft costs closer to 15% to 30%.

3. How should the industry rethink land use conflicts especially in agriculture, conservation, and rural economies?

As someone who grew up on a Georgia farm and now helps site renewable energy projects, I believe we need a more balanced conversation about land use. According to SEIA, utility-scale solar currently uses just 0.07% of America’s farmland. By comparison, suburban development uses about six times more prime farmland, and golf courses use nearly three times more than solar. The conversation should not be agriculture versus solar. It should be about giving farm families and landowners choices, respecting property rights, and finding the right use for each piece of land. Agrivoltaics is another opportunity to help keep family farms thriving.

4. How do you see ownership structures (utility-scale, distributed, cooperative projects) evolving over the next decade?

I don’t believe one owner and model will dominate. As electricity demand continues to grow, utility-scale, distributed and cooperative projects will all play important roles. I believe we’ll see continued growth across every segment as the industry matures. Other countries have already shown what’s possible, and I think the U.S. is still in the early chapters of its solar story. We’ll also likely see more consolidation, with larger companies acquiring smaller ones, but I believe the companies that build trust, innovate, and deliver value will be the ones
that thrive.

5. If you had to explain Solar’s value to a skeptical community in one sentence, what would you say?

“We are not splitting the atom, just harvesting the sun.”

6. How do you see the balance evolving between federal incentives and local control in accelerating deployment?

Federal incentives can help create opportunity, but projects are ultimately built one community at a time. In my experience, what often gets overlooked is that it all starts locally. The energy transition does not begin in Washington. It begins with conversations in local communities, listening to landowners, engaging local leaders early, and earning trust before permits are ever filed. Incentives may encourage investment, but local relationships determine whether projects move forward. If we want to accelerate deployment, we need to invest as much in community partnerships as we do in policy.

7. Most overrated buzzword in clean energy?
“Energy transition.” I think the phrase “energy transition” implies we’re simply replacing one energy source with another. What I’m seeing is an expansion of our energy system. As electricity demand continues to grow, driven by AI, data centers, and advanced manufacturing, we’ll need every reliable electron on the grid. Solar is an important part of that future, but so are transmission, storage, and other generation resources. The conversation shouldn’t be about one technology winning. It should be about working together to build a stronger, more reliable, and more resilient energy future using all of the sources.

8. A project or place that changed how you see solar deployment?

The place that shaped me most wasn’t a solar project. It was the family farm where I grew up in Georgia. Farming taught me that land is deeply personal. It’s where families build their lives, weather hard seasons, and hope to leave something better for the next generation. That perspective has stayed with me throughout my career. Every time I sit down with a landowner, I remember that I’m not just discussing a project. I’m talking about someone’s legacy, and that conversation deserves respect, honesty, and trust.

Brett Little

Brett Little

About the Influencer
Brett Little is the education manager at the GreenHome Institute with over 15 years of experience in residential Green Building Consulting and training. Brett personally helped launch the Michigan Energy Works program over a decade ago. He added Solar and batteries to his own Green Home project in 2020, and then added more during a new roofing project in 2025. Brett is passionate about ensuring people who are excited about Solar also understand energy, efficiency, and electrification, and that health and comfort need to come first.

1. On the question of DIY Solar: how would you compare the good of opening the majority of the population to rooftop solar access vs. the bad of lost installer jobs?

My organization, the GreenHome Institute, seeks to empower people to make the places we live better, not necessarily to ensure solar installer jobs; anything that can lead to greater empowerment is good. But the downside is the risk of poor installations that could, at best, not save energy and, at worst, create safety problems. Therefore, I’m cautiously optimistic about doing it yourself: solar and battery plug-and-play systems, assuming there’s strong legislation and enforcement in place to protect people.

2. Please comment on the fact that 70% of the cost of rooftop solar in the U.S. in 2026 is neither labor nor equipment but rather soft costs.

I’ve heard some of these large numbers going around, but I haven’t seen them personally or anecdotally in my own system costs or in others’, so I’d like to see more evidence for that. Obviously, I agree that, compared to other countries, we have work to do to reduce soft costs by eliminating unnecessary red tape. In addition, we need more value: do the inspectors we pay for via permits actually look at electrical or roof safety? Do they understand utility savings and make sure people aren’t being ripped off?

3. What’s a widely accepted assumption in the solar industry that you think is wrong—or at least incomplete?
People still believe that Solar works less well in the cold, and of course the opposite is true. To be fair, when it’s cold in winter, there are fewer hours of solar output, so that part is true, but it’s usually not highlighted.

4. What technical breakthrough would actually change the game, versus just incrementally improving it?

I think one of the biggest complaints about solar is from people who try to use the excuse about lack of recyclability, so imagine if we made Solar the same way nature does it? 100% bio-based, compostable, locally manufactured, powered by renewable energy, and nontoxic. Just like a leaf!

5. How do you see ownership structures (utility-scale, distributed, cooperative) evolving over the next decade?

I think Community Solar will become the most popular way to reduce risk for everyone while still ensuring people receive benefits. Hopefully, it’s done at an even more local neighborhood level to generate microgrids that actually keep people’s power on.

6. What experience most changed how you think about energy—not just professionally, but personally?

I am not a full-time solar pro, but I need to understand it as part of a holistic home system for my work at the GreenHome Institute. However, the best way to experience solar is to own it. I first did it with a portable PV panel and battery, and later managed, financed, and purchased a solar PV whole-home project for my home. Later, I added more by doing a re-roofing project and adding more solar while putting back what had already been there. That has been the greatest experience for me.

Rob Sternthal (left) with friend and XIP colleague Aaron Richardson on the Sydney bridge climb.

Rob Sternthal

About the Influencer
For the last 20+ years, Rob has been a leading investment banking executive and recognized platform builder across the renewable power, energy, ESG and real assets sectors, advising on more than $25 billion of transactions. Prior to founding XIP, Rob was a Managing Director focusing on renewable power at Piper Sandler. Before that, Rob was responsible for building platforms at Rubicon Capital Advisors as well as CohnReznick (now CRC-IB). Rob founded and built CRC into a market-leader over ten years, managing a team of ~30 professionals that completed nearly $18 billion in transactions during his tenure.

Prior to CRC, Rob established and led multiple real estate and asset-backed securities practices for Credit Suisse in the United States as well as internationally. He began his career as an attorney for the US Securities & Exchange Commission as well as in private practice at Milbank. Rob received a bachelor’s degree in economics and French, with honors, from Emory University and a Juris Doctorate, cum laude, from the Temple University School of Law. Rob is a Registered Representative of BA Securities, LLC. Member FINRA, SIPC.

1. On the question of DIY Solar: how would you compare the good of opening the majority of the population to rooftop solar access vs. the bad of lost installer jobs?

I don’t really see this as a loss of installer jobs. Even if panels become easy enough for homeowners to put up themselves, someone still has to install, service, and maintain them—just like any major appliance in your home. If making solar easier to self-install opens rooftop access to the majority of the population, that’s a clear win. The work doesn’t disappear so much as shifts toward maintenance and repair, and the addressable market grows large enough to support plenty of skilled jobs alongside far broader adoption.

2. What is your comment on the fact that 70% of the cost of rooftop solar in the U.S. in 2026 is neither labor nor equipment but rather soft costs?

It’s concerning, and it forces the question of where that money is actually going. When total costs run $3.50–$4.00 per watt, the biggest culprits are usually broker and sales fees and financing costs—not the panels or the crew on the roof. This is where the market has broken down: the companies originating these
assets are overpaying for origination, and that inefficiency passes straight through to the homeowner. Until we squeeze those soft costs out, rooftop solar will stay more expensive than it needs to be.

3. What’s a widely accepted assumption in the solar industry that you think is wrong—or at least incomplete?
For over a decade, the industry assumed that developing assets was itself the prize. Developers were rewarded with rich valuations and platforms sold for large multiples, even when they never held the assets or built recurring revenue that outweighed development spend and Selling, General, and Administrative Expenses (SG&A). That assumption no longer holds. Today there is no
platform value, only asset value, and those assets have to work harder: cash yields that were once 3–5% now need to be 7% or more. The business has shifted from selling a growth story to owning infrastructure that actually generates cash.

4. Which current policy mechanism is most overrated, and which underutilized lever could have outsized impact?

The Investment Tax Credit is the most overrated. It was meant to spur investment, but in practice it complicates financings. Historically, investors that bought ITC did not require or need insurance; with the advent of the transfer credit where the investor is simply buying the ITC, they wanted more protection, e.g., insurance. That insurance is used now on 80-90% of deals. Supporting the fair market value that sets the credit has spawned preferred-equity structures and, increasingly, insurance to protect the ITC—coverage rarely used before that now backs perhaps 80–90% of transferred credits. The underused lever is simplicity: a straightforward cash grant or a cleanly certificated, transferable credit would strip out layers of structuring and insurance cost, get capital to projects faster, and let more of each dollar reach actual deployment. Or we could just remove the ITC altogether if we can lower the cost of the systems themselves.

5. What experience most changed how you think about energy—not just professionally, but personally?

Buying solar for my own home. My summer bills dropped to nearly zero, then crept back up over time—especially once I added an electric car and my consumption grew. Watching my own electricity costs keep rising, even with panels on the roof, made the value of what we do tangible in a way no spreadsheet could. It’s one thing to model the economics for clients; it’s another to live them. That experience is a constant reminder of how meaningful this industry is to ordinary homeowners and businesses as we shift toward renewable resources.

6. If you had to explain solar’s value to a skeptical community in one sentence, what would you say?

It’s just math: look honestly at the cost of solar today, factor in where power prices are heading, and the simple economics make the case for using solar wherever you can.

7. Most overrated buzzword in clean energy?

“Platform Value.” Sellers still expect that they should be paid “platform value” or additional value for a renewable development platform. Buyers are generally not willing to pay this any longer, but may be willing to pay a premium for a company if they can justify it through other means (e.g., pipeline, synergies, necessity, etc.)

The typical self-installer was often portrayed as an off-grid enthusiast building a remote cabin, a prepper seeking energy independence, or a hobbyist piecing together equipment from online forums. Installing solar yourself was viewed as an alternative lifestyle rather than a mainstream option.

That stereotype no longer reflects today’s reality.

The modern DIY solar customer is increasingly a suburban homeowner looking to lower electricity costs, a rural property owner preparing for outages, or a family planning for future electric vehicles, heat pumps, or battery storage. Many are connected to the utility grid and have no interest in disconnecting from it. Instead, they want greater control over one of the largest infrastructure investments they’ll make in their home.

This evolution has transformed DIY solar from a niche market into one of the industry’s fastest-growing customer segments.

But as self-installation has become easier physically, it has also become more complicated technically. Today’s homeowners have access to more equipment, more online advice, and more purchasing options than ever before. At the same time, choosing safe, compatible, code-compliant equipment—and navigating permitting, inspections, and utility interconnection—has become increasingly complex. The future of DIY solar isn’t simply doing everything yourself. It’s knowing which parts you should do yourself—and which parts still require professional expertise.

Bob Frank with his completed ground-mounted solar array. © Bob Frank, Unbound Solar

Three DIY Customers, Three Very Different Goals

One of the biggest misconceptions about DIY solar is that every self-installer looks the same.

In reality, today’s market consists of three distinct customer types, each requiring different levels of support.

The Full Self-Installer
These full self-installers typically have extensive hands-on experience as electricians, engineers, contractors, mechanics, builders, or skilled tradespeople. They’re comfortable reading plans, troubleshooting electrical systems, using specialized tools, and taking responsibility for complex construction projects.

A full self-installer may complete nearly every aspect of a solar installation, including mounting racking, installing panels, running conduit, pulling wire, configuring inverters, coordinating inspections, and completing utility interconnection paperwork. Even then, local regulations may still require a licensed electrician for certain portions of the work.

Alex Kuhlmann, in Nevada, exemplifies this group.

Although Alex has a mechanical engineering background and works in electrical software, he credits his success less to formal education than to a lifetime of working with his hands. He describes himself as someone who grew up turning wrenches, taking things apart, and figuring out how systems work. After installing his own 10.5 kW grid-tied PV system with two 15-panel arrays, he found that the physical installation was only part of the challenge.

The more difficult obstacle was navigating county engineering requirements and utility documentation, particularly after adding an EV charging load to his home. Professional system design, permit-ready plans, and engineering support helped move the project through approval.

Alex estimates that completing the installation himself saved a substantial amount compared to turnkey contractor quotes. Just as valuable, however, was gaining a deep understanding of how his system operates and how to maintain it over time.

His experience illustrates an important reality: capable DIYers still benefit from professional design and technical support.

The Hybrid DIY Installer
If one customer segment defines the future of DIY solar, it’s the hybrid installer. Rather than doing everything alone, hybrid installers divide the project strategically. They tackle work they’re comfortable performing—such as installing racking, mounting modules, trenching conduit, coordinating materials, and managing the schedule— while hiring licensed professionals for wiring, final connections, service work, or other code-sensitive tasks.

This group of hybrid DIY installers needs to know what they can safely do, what should be hired out, how to communicate with an electrician, and how to keep the project aligned with the design and permit documents. This approach combines meaningful labor savings with professional oversight and support where it’s needed most.

The main support this group needs includes: a clear system design, permit-ready plans, defined scope of work, equipment compatibility guidance, utility paperwork support, and enough technical documentation that both the homeowner and the electrician understand how the system is supposed to come together.

Eric and Lori Lynn Todd of Napa County, California, demonstrate how successful this model can be.

Wanting to be deeply involved in the project because they cared about quality, resilience, and understanding how their system worked, they managed much of the project themselves. They built the ground-mounted structure, coordinated documentation, completed trenching, and organized hundreds of individual project tasks.

Lori maintained a detailed project plan tracking every stage of construction. That was the right division of labor for their project: they handled much of the heavy work and project management, while receiving professional system design support as part of project planning and also hiring a qualified electrician to handle the code-sensitive electrical work.

Their greatest challenge wasn’t installing equipment—it was navigating Napa County’s rigorous permitting process, engineering requirements, battery regulations, and fire marshal reviews. Without professional design, documentation, and guidance, that process could have been extremely difficult.

Today, their solar-plus-storage system provides seamless backup power during outages, giving them greater resilience alongside long-term energy savings. They now power through outages without even knowing the grid went down.

Their project reflects a growing trend throughout the industry: homeowners want to stay involved without assuming unnecessary risk.

Sunni Schoepe (left) with helpers during a rooftop solar installation. Many guided DIY projects are collaborative, with homeowners taking an active role in the work while relying on professional design, plans, and technical guidance. © Sunni Schoepe, Unbound Solar

The Owner-Builder
The third category views solar differently altogether.

For owner-builders, solar isn’t a standalone purchase. It’s one component of a much larger property development project. Owner-builders want to understand what is being installed, why the system is designed the way it is, what their future expansion options are, and how to manage and maintain the system over time. For a major home energy upgrade, that knowledge and control can be just as important as the labor savings.

This group often includes rural property owners, off-grid homeowners, people building or renovating a home, customers adding power to a shop, barn, accessory dwelling unit, cabin, greenhouse, well system, or outbuilding, and homeowners who are already acting as their own general contractor on other parts of the property.

While owner-builders need professional design support, they also need flexible guidance as the project evolves; they are often responsible for completing system planning, site preparation, trenching, ground-mount work, equipment placement, racking, panel installation, coordinating contractors, managing scheduling, sourcing materials, and working through permits or inspections.

In addition, they also benefit from professional load analysis, system architecture, equipment selection, battery and backup design, ground-mount or rooftop planning, permit-ready documentation, utility or AHJ requirements where applicable, and clear guidance on what work should involve a licensed electrician or other qualified professional.

Mike O’Dell and his wife Rose install panels on a ground-mounted solar array at their off-grid property. Their project reflects the owner-builder side of the DIY solar market: customers taking an active role in building their own power infrastructure while relying on professional design and support. © Mike O’Dell, Unbound Solar

Mike and Rose O’Dell’s off-grid property illustrates this mindset.

They were not simply adding panels to an existing home. They were building the energy infrastructure for a property that includes a home, a well system, battery storage, backup power, and a dedicated “solar house” for equipment.

Mike was very hands-on, but what makes his story a strong owner-builder example is the larger project context. Solar had to fit into the way the whole property worked. Decisions about equipment location, cable sizing, pumps, batteries, loads, and future use all mattered because the system was part of making the property livable.

Throughout construction, design decisions evolved. Inverter locations changed. Cable runs extended. They worked through ground-mount decisions, off-grid power needs, and troubleshooting. Mike emphasized that equipment can be purchased from many places, but the real value was information, design guidance, and support after the sale.

His experience highlights why owner-builders value ongoing technical guidance long after equipment has been delivered.

Why Guided DIY is Replacing Equipment-Only Sales

There is a fundamental shift in how DIY solar is delivered. It’s no longer just about selling equipment; it is about providing professional support.

A successful DIY solar project starts before anything goes on the roof. It starts with a professionally designed system, safe and compatible equipment, a clear plan for permitting and interconnection, and an honest understanding of which parts the homeowner will do themselves and where they will bring in expert help. At a minimum, every DIYer should get expert support with system design and equipment selection.

Correct design is the foundation of the project. The system needs to be designed around the customer’s actual goals, home, utility requirements, site conditions, electrical infrastructure, and future plans. A customer who wants to reduce their power bill may need a very different system than a customer who wants to protect critical loads during outages. While a customer planning for EV charging, a heat pump, or future expansion may need a different design than someone simply offsetting current usage.

Equipment selection is just as important. The components need to be safe, certified, compatible, and appropriate for the installation. Solar should be designed as a complete and carefully constructed system, not assembled from a random pile of parts.

Permitting support is equally valuable.

Many experienced homeowners discover that the paperwork proves more challenging than the installation itself. Engineering documentation, utility applications, inspection requirements, equipment certifications, and local code interpretations vary significantly between jurisdictions.

Missing engineering documentation, equipment certifications or labeling, inspection requirements, incorrect assumptions, or unclear plan sets can delay a project – so they should not be treated as afterthoughts. Because the permitting process depends so heavily on the system design, it is much easier when the design, plans, and paperwork are coordinated from the beginning.

Success often depends less on installing panels, and more on correctly preparing documentation before construction even begins.

Kim Bloxom’s completed rooftop solar array. The project reflects the guided DIY model: capable homeowners taking an active role in their solar installation while relying on professional design, plans, and technical support. © Kim Bloxom, Unbound Solar

Customization Improves Safety—and Success

Customizing the experience matters because solar has to match both the customer’s capabilities and the project’s complexity. A simple grid-tied roof mount may require one level of guidance. A battery backup system, ground mount, off-grid property, service upgrade, or project with future EV charging may require much more design, documentation, and technical support.

Customization is also important for safety. Customers should be encouraged to take on the work they can reasonably and safely handle, while bringing in qualified professionals for the parts that require licensing, code expertise, or specialized experience. A good DIY model should not pressure everyone into doing everything themselves. It should help each customer make smart decisions about where to save money and where to get help.

Dan Fontaine’s rooftop solar array installed on a metal-roof outbuilding. Many guided DIY customers use solar not only for the main home, but also for shops, barns, garages, and other property infrastructure. © Dan Fontaine, Unbound Solar

The best outcome is a system that fits the homeowner, not just the house. Customization lets customers stay involved, control costs, and learn the system, while still getting the professional support needed for design, permitting, equipment compatibility, battery integration, and inspection. That is what makes guided DIY scalable: it meets people where they actually are.

The Danger of “Frankenstein” Systems

Unfortunately, one troubling trend has accompanied the growth of online equipment sales.

Some homeowners attempt to assemble systems from unrelated components sourced from multiple vendors based primarily on price.

Ian Denchasy’s rooftop solar installation in progress. The project shows how guided DIY customers can take an active role in installing their system while relying on professional design, equipment selection, and technical support. © Ian Denchasy, Unbound Solar

This “Frankenstein” approach often ignores one of solar’s most important realities: a solar installation is an integrated energy system—not simply a collection of individual products.

Panels, inverters, batteries, rapid shutdown devices, monitoring platforms, and electrical equipment must communicate correctly, comply with applicable safety standards, satisfy utility requirements, and remain serviceable for decades.

This concern becomes even greater with battery storage.

The rapid expansion of battery manufacturers has created more consumer choice—but also more confusion. Not every battery marketed online carries the certifications, compatibility, or long-term support necessary for residential installations.

Selecting equipment based solely on price can create inspection problems, warranty issues, performance limitations, and, in some cases, significant safety risks.

Ashton Grandy’s completed residential rooftop solar installation. The project shows how guided DIY solar can help homeowners use available roof space to build a system designed around their home and energy goals. © Ashton Grandy, Unbound Solar

Looking Ahead: DIY is All About Support

DIY solar’s next chapter extends well beyond rooftop panels.

Increasingly, homeowners are investing in complete energy ecosystems that combine solar, batteries, EV charging, backup power, intelligent load management, and software that coordinates everything automatically.

As these systems become more sophisticated, professional guidance and support become even more valuable.

Ironically, DIY solar has become easier physically, but harder informationally. There are more options, more online advice, more equipment brands, and more noise.

Tyler Hartline’s residential rooftop solar installation. Rooftop projects like this show how guided DIY solar can fit into a conventional home setting when the system is professionally designed and installed according to the project plan. © Tyler Hartline, Unbound Solar

As an example, YouTube, online forums, and social media have undoubtedly helped expand the market by showing homeowners that self-installation is achievable. But influencers should never replace experts – especially if affiliate marketing is involved. Solar is highly site-specific. Every home has unique electrical infrastructure, different loads and roof conditions, future energy needs, permitting requirements, and long-term goals that cannot be solved through a generic online tutorial.

The future of DIY is guided. Homeowners remain actively involved, but professionals provide engineering and technical expertise, and every system is custom designed to operate safely, efficiently, and reliably for decades.

This guidance also extends to post-install support. Many DIY companies are built around the transaction: sell the equipment and move on. But solar and storage systems are long-term infrastructure. Customers need monitoring, troubleshooting, firmware updates, warranty support, performance optimization, and a path for future expansion. That becomes even more important as systems include batteries, EV charging, smart load management, and backup power.

This model delivers something the original DIY movement often couldn’t: confidence that the system will perform exactly as intended long after the final panel is installed.

About the Author
Deep Patel is the founder and CEO of Gigawatt Inc., the parent company of Unbound Solar and Real Goods. Unbound Solar has provided DIY solar kits and expert support for over 19 years, serving homeowners, contractors, and professionals. Real Goods, established in 1978, is a legacy brand in the solar industry known for reliable solar and energy storage products. Through these brands, Deep is focused on expanding access to clean energy by combining education, high-quality components, and a customer-first approach.

Solar’s competitiveness with conventional power becomes obvious when on-site energy systems supplant not merely the grid, but also heating and vehicles.

In recent years, electric technologies have hit the market that enable modular, interoperable power, heating, hot water, and vehicle systems to be energy independent.

Solar panels are dirt cheap, having dropped from over a hundred dollars per watt to pennies. EV manufacturers are making cars with bidirectional chargers, turning their batteries into energy storage, with the potential to minimize their impact on, and actually relieve, a congested power grid, while also maximizing on-site solar power that stays on in blackouts, eliminating fossil fuels.

How do we go from 5% of U.S. households with solar to 95%? Utilities should get out of the way. States must remove the obstacles they themselves created. Municipalities must actively promote measures to reduce solar soft costs, add value, and minimize fees and taxes.

Net metering is under attack, but solar is now so inexpensive that it no longer requires a corporate welfare system paid by taxpayers and ratepayers to beat fossil fuels.

The problem is no longer technology or even labor costs; it is middlemen. A codependency exists between government, “public” utilities, and industry: 70-80% of the average cost of U.S. rooftop solar today comes from “soft costs”: neither equipment nor labor but marketing, permits, and fees.

Read that again, and if you aren’t outraged, once again. Middleman-ism has become the big obstacle to solar normalization. Soft costs are excluding 95% of US buildings.

For decades we have been told that the energy transition is replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources. To succeed, the energy transition requires changing the energy user’s relationship to energy. DIY isn’t just about avoiding soft costs, professional installers, and financiers, but mastering energy technologies in the same way we’ve mastered computers and smartphones. Users should be able to use their own energy systems to capture benefits.

For many able-bodied Americans, DIY can avoid unnecessary labor costs and lower solar setup prices, especially for lower-income households that often cannot afford systems priced at three times the cost of equipment.

DIY is not just for off-grid systems. It is needed to normalize solar as an affordable presence in urban areas where nearly all energy is consumed. This dream has been in many ways supplanted by massive rural utility scale solar and grid-battery projects that feed the urban maw.

Because DIY can open up dense urban areas, it is the key to saving rural zones from wasteful investments in mega-infrastructure projects. Utility corporations love gigantic centralized projects because they ensure multi-decade revenue streams. Others hate them for industrializing the countryside and raising delivery charges.

Energy consumers and governments alike should learn from the DIY innovators in this issue who have entered the regulatory gray zone of semi-forbidden solar savoir-faire.

Governments should legalize, encourage, and actively facilitate DIY solar in place of punitive prohibitions and funding disqualifications. Regulators should require utilities to remove interconnection barriers and costly protocols for DIY solar systems. Solar permitting should be redesigned to actively support DIY permit applicants.

This first issue of Solar Today under our editorship is an effort to bring focus to perhaps the final frontier for the fulfillment of solar’s potential: systemic change.

Unprecedented Load Demand Growth

In combination, the added load demands on the nation’s grid from the following sources may well see an over 40% growth by 2030.

• Data centers (+12% – S&P Global Research¹)
• Crypto-currency mining (+3% – Carnegie Mellon University²)
• Electric vehicles (+9% – NREL³)
• Shifts towards the electrification of heating and industry (+8% – International Energy Agency⁴)
• Climate change (+10% – IEA⁵)

Assuming these projections are accurate, the US grid would have to add about 126 GW of new generating capacity each year for the next four years. Current trends would indicate that it will not even come close to meeting those numbers. The most ever added to the grid in a single year occurred in 2002 when nearly 60 GW of new generation came online. And permitting already in place for 2026 indicates that at best the grid will see the addition of 40 GW of solar, 20 GW of battery storage and 10 GW of new wind generation (70 GW total).⁶

Projections from various studies indicate the US grid may experience over 40% in load demand over the next four years. © Firefly generated

In sum, new generation capacity can only meet a fraction of the anticipated load demand growth. So where will this new power come from?

It is clear that the adoption of AI is part of the problem (see chart above – data centers), but perhaps it can also be part of the solution. Integrating artificial intelligence into the management of energy consumption and distribution of homes, businesses, and even the grid itself may go a long way towards addressing these shortfalls.

The Grid has a lot of Headroom

While total load demand is important, from the grid’s perspective it is even more important when the demand occurs. The electric grid is designed to meet peak demand, the few hours in a year when the most electricity is used, not average load demand. In other words, build for the worst and hope for the best.

As a result, there is extra generating capacity built into the design – but only if it can be used effectively. AI may be just the tool required to assist in making that happen.

In 2026 the capacity utilization for U.S. electric power generation, transmission, and distribution sits at about 72%.⁷ This means that on average, the grid operates at about 72% of its maximum sustainable capacity. This is an historically low percentage (see chart to the right), meaning there is a tremendous amount of potential generating capacity that could be unlocked with the right management tools.

The grid currently has about 1,353 GW (1.35 terawatts) of generating capacity. Unlocking this capacity potential is the equivalent of building an additional 380 GW of new power generation.

Much of the additional capacity headroom is the result of the grid’s greater reliance on renewable energy such as wind and solar. Given the variability of these resources, a larger cushion has been required to ensure grid resilience. But the addition of batteries and the integration of demand response tools may allow operators to unlock that capacity while still maintaining a resilient grid.

Grid Demand Management

Utilities can employ a combination of technologies, software, and management strategies designed to better balance electrical supply with demand. These can be especially useful in reducing peak load demand. The most direct way of lowering peak energy demand is to deal directly with the sources of that demand. This may involve reducing loads through predictive heating/cooling systems that monitor weather forecasts and minimize heating and cooling when the space is unoccupied — but then pre-cool or pre-heat living spaces just prior to when people return. AI can also be instrumental in monitoring and controlling adaptive lighting and reducing the need for phantom loads.

The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that 20-60% of all energy used in the average US home is wasted.⁸ Minimizing even a fraction of this waste can go a long way towards bridging the looming energy gap.

Additionally, the promise of the “smart grid” may actually become a reality with the help of AI. Controlling certain loads during times of peak load demand – such as turning off hot water heaters or EV charging stations – can significantly flatten the demand curve.

Real-Time Pricing

Economics are obviously a huge incentive. Time-of-day pricing schemes have been implemented across the country in an effort to entice consumers to use more power when it is readily available and cut their consumption during high demand periods. These pricing schemes reflect the reality that utilities often face quite different costs when providing power, depending on load demand.

Average wholesale electricity prices across the U.S. generally hover between $20-$40 per MWh. However, during extreme weather events those prices can soar to several thousand dollars per MWh. As a result, consumers often purchase power at prices that are well below cost during some hours and well above cost in others. Trying to match these events can be confusing, causing consumers to simply ignore complex rate structures. As a result, a study by Wharton estimates that traditional time-of-use pricing policies only deliver 17-20% of the efficiency gain that would be possible with real-time pricing.⁹

Real-time pricing (RTP) seeks to lower cost and reliability risks by passing through actual supply costs to consumers as they occur. Imagine a time when the price of electricity will vary second-to-second based on how much demand is on the grid at that moment. By encouraging load shifting (running loads that are not critical during a time of lower-cost power), RTP can help smooth and flatten demand curves.

In order to meet anticipated load growth, the grid will need to unlock over 120 GW of new power sources each year through 2030. © Firefly generated

But clearly, in order to make this vision a reality, constant and real-time monitoring and controls must manage the system. And here is where AI comes into play. Utilities will require AI-enabled systems that track and price energy costs on a real-time basis. And consumers will need AI-enabled systems, controls and appliances to take advantage of the dynamic pricing. Everything moves simply too fast for humans to monitor and control these constantly shifting systems.

Utilization rates have steadily declined since 2000 as more and more renewable generation sources have been added to the grid. © FRED

Virtual Power Plants

The grid was designed as a network of utilities which controlled (within their service area) all electrical generation as well as all electrical loads (turning them off when supply could not meet demand). This is clearly no longer the case.

The proliferation of distributed energy resources (primarily solar and storage) is taking control out of the hands of the utility and placing it into those of the customers. All those distributed sources of energy represent yet another potential energy resource that could be better harvested to meet the needs of the grid.

SEIA (the Solar Energy Industries Association) tells us that “Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) are a network of small energy generation sites—think hundreds of homes with rooftop solar—that are combined with storage technologies like home batteries and electric vehicles to help grid operators manage peak demand, improve affordability, and bolster grid resilience.”¹⁰

And there is a lot of potential energy out there. The DOE estimates that by 2030 virtual power plants could provide 80-160 GW of capacity, meeting 20% of peak load demand. And this is energy that can be had at an affordable cost. The DOE further estimates that a new 400 MW virtual power plant would have a net cost of $43 per kW-year, while a similarly sized gas peaker plant would cost about $99 per kW-year.¹¹ Once again AI will be required to effectively manage these resources, moving power from where it is available to where it is needed on a real-time basis.

Predictive Everything

With the integration of AI into all aspects of the grid, comes the ability to predict events and control response to all aspects of the grid.

Predictive hyperlocal weather data will enable grid operators to analyze temperature, humidity, and extreme weather events on a granular level, allowing utilities to anticipate load spikes during heatwaves or cold snaps, optimize renewable generation (solar/wind), and pre-position crews for potential outages.

Predictive equipment maintenance will soon allow utilities to forecast equipment failures before they cause power outages. Rather than dealing with failures as they happen, utilities can reduce unplanned downtime by 50–70% and lower maintenance costs by 20–40% according to studies by the DOE.¹²

AI has the potential to change nearly every aspect of our lives. The grid will be no exception.

The nation’s utility grid is a highly complex network of millions of interconnected devices. A perfect playground for AI. Grid operators are already envisioning a day when AI models will investigate and troubleshoot potential problems, automate workflows, and take autonomous actions based on AI-driven insights.

Is the grid now a relic of the past?

As the way power is used and delivered is altered dramatically over the next few years, it is not outside the realm of possibilities to assume that AI will also reshape the very utility model that has remained largely unchanged since the days of Edison and Tesla.

With the rise of virtual power plants, it may prove to be only a short leap in regulatory logic to find the first virtual utility competing with the traditional investor-owed incumbents. Virtual utilities that manage vast amounts of power transactions without owning a single power plant or a meter of wire.

And as homeowners and businesses find that they can install off-grid systems more cheaply than continuing to purchase power from the grid – utilities will have to change their business model from thinking of themselves as electricity providers to thinking of themselves as the facilitators of connected energy services. We have seen these transitions before as technology reshapes long entrenched systems: the destruction of “Ma Bell” in favor of wireless telephony and the explosion of the Internet; the emergence of virtual banks such as PayPal and Venmo.

As Douglas Adams once said, “Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn’t work properly yet.” And AI certainly fits that bill at the moment. But once it gets its act together, it will help to transform how we use electricity in ways we cannot yet imagine.

About the Author
Jay Warmke is the author of numerous green technology books and has developed renewable energy curriculum for many colleges and universities across North America in his capacity is the owner of Solar PV Training LLC. He has served as vice president of the board of directors of Green Energy Ohio and as president of the International Certification and Accreditation Council. In 2015 he was elected to ETA’s Board of Directors and for the past 10 years has served as Chair of the Renewable Energy Committee. He also currently sits on the ASES editorial advisory committee.

1. tinyurl.com/SPGlobaldata
2. tinyurl.com/cryptoloaddemand
3. tinyurl.com/EVloaddemand
4. tinyurl.com/heatloadIEA
5. tinyurl.com/climatechangeIEA
6. tinyurl.com/2026newgen
7. tinyurl.com/gridcapacityutilization
8. tinyurl.com/DOEenergyefficiency
9. tinyurl.com/TOUpricing
10. tinyurl.com/SEIAVPP
11. tinyurl.com/SEIAVPP
12. tinyurl.com/DOEpredictmaintenance

If you had a mule or a horse, you could access about 10 times the power of a person. That factor of ten made it possible to plow, plant, and harvest more than your family could consume, providing a cash crop. Cash was king.

For many parts of our country, the Erie Canal brought commerce. You could sell your farm’s produce to a wider market and get a new shirt that arrived on a canal boat, many times easier than the shirt you wanted before the canal existed.

Attached to the boats by a rope, mules and horses walked along a towpath next to the canal, pulling the barges behind them as they went. Teams of horses or mules worked in shifts. Compared to overland travel of their time, these barges were the equivalent of today’s jumbo jets in terms of efficiency and scale.

Today, I use a solar electric mule to power the boats I sometimes ride on the Erie Canal. But instead of a couple of acres of grassland to feed my solar-powered mule, the area on the roof of the boat provides a couple of horsepower. This remarkable ratio, maybe 1000 to 1, results from both the inefficiency of the food chain from sunlight to animals and the over 20% efficiency of doped silicon crystals in converting solar photons into a direct electric current.

Having traveled 1400 miles, the equivalent of Maine to Florida, voyaging with my son from Bellingham, Washington, to Glacier Bay, Alaska, in a 100% solar electric boat, I feel confident to say I have a solar electric-powered mule.

Solar Sal Boats is building our 12th 100% solar powered electric boat. One of our boats, a 25-foot model, has been in operation for 14 years on an Adirondack lake with no road and no electricity. As a launch, it takes people, their baggage, and most importantly, their food to up to 50 people living in the woods in tents. Sometimes it takes lumber or a cement mixer!

The most well-known Solar Sal boat is a 44-foot commercial tour boat that generates revenue for the Hudson River Maritime Museum in Kingston, New York. Named Solaris, she is the first 100% solar U.S. Coast Guard-inspected boat.

An outing on Sol, the first wooden boat. © David and Harriet Borton

Solar Boating and Alaska

During the Covid slowdown in 2020, our son Alex suggested that he and I make a solar voyage 1,400 miles to Glacier Bay, Alaska, from his home in Bellingham, Washington. This suggestion did not come out of the blue. He had been cruising around the San Juan Islands in our 27-foot solar electric boat, long enough to know the boat was good for the trip. Since I had been designing, building, and piloting solar electric boats, I knew that we could afford the fuel (free solar energy). And Covid-related slowdowns meant we could afford the time.

A Short History of Our Boats

After a couple of experiments to test the concept, in 2011 my wife Harriet and I built a 25-foot wooden solar electric boat in our garage. I named her Sol (Spanish for Sun) because I put my soul into it, and she is the sole boat I thought I’d ever make. But things turned out differently: Sol was such a good boat that I couldn’t stop! She was designed as a launch for a lake in the Adirondacks and is still in use today.

Solaris Construction at HRMM. © DHudson River Maritime Museum

The hull form of Sol was found by our son Alex. Dennis Wolfe in Michigan had made a plug in version that looked perfect for our boat. Dennis made the ribs, or forms, and bulkheads that define the cross sections of the boat for us. These shapes are mounted on a wooden frame attached to the floor of our garage. This ladderback or hardback sets up the coordinate system for shaping the boat. Once the frames are firmly attached to the hardback, I choose to use 1-inch x 1-inch red cedar strips to frame the hull.

Other traditional boat-making techniques use wider planks and other woods and make the boat right-side up. By making the boat upside down, however, the entire hull is available for attaching the strips, then smoothing the surface, and, in this case, adding a couple of layers of fiberglass for extra strength and durability. The process of getting a smooth final shape is called fairing, and the finished result is ready for painting.

Typically, the sides are painted with the desired color, and a red “boot stripe” is painted at the waterline. The bottom usually has “bottom paint,” which is formulated for saltwater or freshwater and contains ingredients to reduce the growth of plants and animals that need a surface to grow on. ‘Roll over’ is the exciting process of releasing the hull from the hardback and turning it right side up. The interior of the boat can have a wide variety of designs and features, but some items are required. Sol has an electric outboard motor hidden in a motorwell just ahead of the transom. The motor is controlled from the helm and steered by a round or spoked wheel. A throttle controls the electric power going from the batteries to the motor and thus the boat’s speed and direction.

Sol has a solid roof that supports 1.5 kW of solar photovoltaic panels. The panels’ electrical output is connected to a charge controller that provides the correct amount of power to charge the battery. This power level depends on the type of battery and the state of charge, or how full the battery is.

Attaching panels to Solaris roof.© David and Harriet Borton

For me, a solar-electric boat is practical if the power available on the roof approximately equals the power required to move the boat through the water at its hull speed. Hull speed is the physical limit for a displacement hull moving in the water. As the boat moves, it generates a wave, and as the boat moves faster, it generates a wave with a longer wavelength. When the wavelength equals the length of the boat, the water is pushed higher, but the boat doesn’t go faster.

Experimental Model on Mohawk River. © David and Harriet Borton

Speed boats have a flatter bottom and more powerful, fuel-powered engines that can push the boat up and over the bow wave. This is a different physics that supports the boat in a planing configuration. Sol’s displacement hull is supported by the water around it. Planing boats are supported by pushing the water down hard enough to lift the boat up.

Family volunteers helping to build Solar Sal. © David and Harriet Borton

The solar panels on a solar electric boat are chosen for their high efficiency in converting light into electrical power. The system’s wiring is chosen to minimize power loss during transmission. Good charge controllers have high efficiency, and efficient batteries are a topic in and of themselves. Boat motors used to have a commutator that controlled the position of the magnetic fields by connecting carbon brushes to different windings. Recently, high-power electronic current control has enabled brushless motors and requires essentially no annual maintenance.

These practical boats have no fuel cost, require no plugging in to charge, and are usually fully charged when you step to the helm and turn on the motor. Like turning on a light switch, the power is instantaneously available.

Electric motors have several specific advantages over internal combustion engines. One is that the torque that turns the propeller is fully available when you turn up the throttle. For a fuel-powered engine, the torque depends on RPM, and so the engine must speed up to get to full torque.

A more important difference is that a fuel engine must be turning at a minimum idle speed; it can’t operate below that speed without stalling. The engine clunks into forward or reverse at idle. In contrast, an electronically controlled electric motor powers at every speed from zero to full speed, with no clunk and instant torque. This control is important for ease of docking and maneuvering in tight spaces.

Sal on the Erie Canal

My next boat was a 40-foot wooden solar-electric boat, designed as proof of concept for both cargo and passengers. She was planned for the Erie Canal, and during the building by volunteers, the group was thinking of the Erie Canal song.

“I’ve got a mule, her name is Sal, 15 miles on the Erie Canal…”

A friend suggested “Solar Sal,” and the name stuck. (We have since adopted the name “Solar Sal Boats” for our entire line of solar-electric boats.) Just after completion in 2015, the original Solar Sal made a cargo trip the length of the Erie Canal from the Hudson River to the Niagara River at Buffalo. There she picked up four tons of cardboard and returned to a paper mill a little north on the Hudson River, a 750-mile solar-powered recycling trip. This was the first carbon-free trip on the Erie Canal since mules.

Solaris and Solar Sal 24, traveling together near Kingston, New York. © David and Harriet Borton

These boats did not generate a lot of buzz in the boating world, so we made a plan—a 44-foot, U.S. Coast Guard-inspected boat certified to carry paying passengers. That was a big change because I’m not recognized by the Coast Guard as either a boat designer or a boat builder. Therefore, we found an excellent and well-known Marine architect, Dave Gerr, and in 2017, put his detailed design out to bid. We chose the Riverport Wooden Boat School in Kingston to build her. The Boat School is part of the Hudson River Maritime Museum, and during the build, they realized she was the perfect boat for them. The museum bought her, christened her Solaris, and since her launch in 2019, they have been giving regular tours on the Hudson River and Rondout Creek. She is very popular and never needs to be plugged in.

If you think any of this was straightforward, you’d be wrong. As required for a boat carrying paying passengers, the Coast Guard was actively involved throughout the construction process. But they had incomplete rules for electric boats and no regulations for solar boats, and we had the first 100% solar-electric boat seeking Certification. That was a learning experience in both directions.

Alex, living on the West Coast, wanted to introduce solar electric boats out there. He found Sam Devlin, a well-known and respected boat builder, and together they developed a 27-foot Solar Sal for the Pacific Northwest. Our other son, Chuck, who also lives in the east, came up with the name for the west coast boat, Wayward Sun, pun intended! Alex cruised Wayward Sun around Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands, and into the Strait of Georgia in southern British Columbia.

In 2021, Alex and I prepared the boat for the Alaska trip and cruised to Sidney on Victoria Island to see if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would let us into the waters of British Columbia during Covid. The land portion of BC was shut down to Americans, and even internal travel was curtailed. The Mounties thought our boat looked on the small side, but let us in if we followed the rules: don’t go on land; do go the shortest route; don’t stop unnecessarily, etc.

Wayward Sun in Glacier Bay. © David and Harriet Borton

About three days were sunny during the cloudy, rainy, foggy Inside Passage, but we had lots of solar energy. Because electric motors are quiet, we heard lots of whales spouting, saw lots of charismatic mega-fauna, and enjoyed mountains, glaciers, and waterfalls. Covid restrictions kept passenger vessels and cruise ships out of the waters and the docks along the way. Barges with timber and wood chips, shipping containers, and construction equipment enlivened the first half of the BC route, but thinned out the rest of the way. Occasional fishing boats went by, and a couple of times we saw them fishing.

David and Alex arrive in Ketchikan, Alaska on Wayward Sun. © David and Harriet Borton

We did get a sunny day during our stop in Ketchikan and again in Juneau. The best was the sun for our day at the face of the Margerie Glacier. We could see 14,000-foot mountains and snowfields at the top of the glacier. Calving ice made lots of different noises and various iceberg pieces around us — a small boat at the foot of a 250-foot-high, half-mile-wide glacier face. It was fun to restock our food cooler with chunks of glacier ice.

To make our boats more affordable, we decided to build a smaller fiberglass model – a day boat designed for families and small groups. After making molds for a Solar Sal 24’ model, we built three 24’ fiberglass boats, all of which are currently for sale.

Our most ambitious and high-end solar boat is now nearing completion in Port Townsend, WA., with the launch expected this August. A departure from our previous boats, its semi-displacement hull allows for higher speeds, assuming plug-in charging when needed. This will give the Townsend 34 the speed and range of a comparable diesel trawler.

Townsend 34 artist rendering, launch expected August 2026. © Alex Borton

I know that the physics works, and I consider these solar-electric boats to be practical. Some folks may think that the speed of these boats (hull speed or sailboat speed) is too slow. But the go-fast boats require either petroleum fuel or shore-based electric power to charge their batteries. Solar electric boats silently charge themselves and take me where I want to go. And the sun’s energy is free forever.

About the Author
Capt. David Borton has been in canoes and Adirondack guideboats since birth. After the 1974 oil crisis, David put his physics Ph.D. to work in solar energy research and development and in teaching solar energy engineering. More recently, he has focused on developing solar-powered electric boats. www.solarsal.solar

EVs are giant batteries on wheels. They could smooth out the daily and seasonal variations of energy flows on the electric grid, making the grid more reliable and everyone’s electricity cheaper. But a self-serving alliance of disparate interests is working hard to discourage EV adoption. One front of their many attacks involves apocalyptic tales of grid collapse.

Reduced photovoltaic (PV) system prices have made storage costs the main hurdle to going off-grid. But if your car provides storage, the marginal cost of cutting the cord (“grid defection”) drops drastically. Grid defection is less than ideal for society, no matter how much sense it makes to an individual. But utilities, seeking to maintain their monopolies and to usurp all the benefits of solar for themselves, are creating an environment in which defection has become a logical option for many customers.

None of this opposition is based on truth. Ultimately, it will fail. But even short-term success would be problematic. If we’re to end up with the environmentally, economically, and democratically optimal energy system we deserve, we have a lot of work (education, lobbying, etc.) to do.

The Value of the Grid

The electric grid is a shining example of community in action. Shared use of the equipment necessary to produce and deliver electricity results in massive cost, efficiency, and environmental benefits, compared to users acting independently. Unfortunately, these advantages introduce a huge sociopolitical challenge.

Because the benefits of cooperation are so strong, the grid is a “natural monopoly.” Unlike the “free” and “fair” markets which are the focus of undergraduate economics curricula, natural monopolies are “winner-take-all” markets. Even if competition were allowed, economies of scale would mean that one participant would eventually dominate, putting all others out of business.

At the dawn of the electric age, governments recognized this reality and chose to optimize capital efficiency by granting utilities territorial monopolies. These utilities were vertically integrated, with all necessary components vested in the same company: generation, transmission and distribution (T&D), and control. The granting governments, recognizing the dangers of relying on monopolies for a critical service, chose to retain citizen control by establishing public utilities commissions (PUCs). PUCs are state-level entities, but are now complemented by a wide assortment of federal agencies.

What a Tangled Web

Regulated utility monopolies are among the most successful and visible examples of public-private partnerships in the United States today. The language and concepts of free market purity, competitive advantage earned through customer satisfaction, and other tropes of laissez-faire capitalism simply don’t apply. But that doesn’t stop dishonest actors from using such language as they try to co-opt the regulatory process.

Very soon, the grid will undergo a major shift. Climate and other sustainability goals demand much greater flexibility, far better T&D connectivity, and less reliance on inflexible base load generation. Existing storage, put in place mainly to accommodate high fractions of base generation (especially nuclear), will become increasingly useful (and hence see improved capital efficiency) in the presence of higher fractions of intermittent generating assets like wind and solar.

From Outer Space to a Wire Near You

Before the 1990s, PV only made financial sense off-grid (starting with the ultimate off-grid application: spacecraft). As technology improved and markets expanded, prices dropped. Though still high, they fell enough that committed individuals could justify installing PV on the grid. By the early 2000s, ASES and other advocacy groups were winning fairer compensation and interconnection protocols, most notably net metering. The resulting market growth lowered system prices enough to make both utility-scale PV and grid-tied distributed generation (DG) financially attractive. For those interested in history, Home Power Magazine, now available through an online archive, chronicled this evolution in real time from 1987 until 2018.²

Customer-owned DG represents a major disruption of the investor-owned utility (IOU) business model. IOUs are fighting tooth and claw to retain their obsolete monopolies. Using a script provided by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a segment of conservative politicians disingenuously attacks DG by reducing or eliminating net metering compensation, adding bogus fees, and erecting other hurdles. Their arguments accuse net-metered customers of freeloading, claiming that DG systems add costs that their (presumably wealthy) owners don’t pay, creating a cross-subsidy from less affluent ratepayers.

Contrary to ALEC’s main line of attack, numerous independent studies have concluded that net metering introduces no significant cross-subsidy.³ In fact, many studies show the opposite: a significant cross-subsidy from net metered customers to other ratepayers.^4,5

Because batteries are usually the most expensive part of an off-grid system, most grid-tied PV systems don’t include storage, and anti-islanding safety features prevent them from generating power during grid outages. Accordingly, much of ALEC’s model legislation “encourages” net metered ratepayers to add storage. The real purpose is to raise system costs, lengthening payback times, and discouraging investment.

Driving to Resilience (The Opportunity)

EVs disrupt an even broader group of industries than PV. Automotive OEMs (original equipment manufacturers, the people who build complete vehicles) have generally accepted their fate: they can either develop competitive EVs or they can surrender to China and go bankrupt. But other industries (oil and gas, biofuels, ocean shipping, and automotive suppliers, to name just a few) are still resisting. Their primary weapons are euphemistically called “disinformation” and “spin”; in plain language, lies.

One pervasive claim is that EVs will crash the grid. But the opposite is true. Cars are typically parked 22 hours a day, so EVs represent an almost totally dispatchable load. Drivers can be encouraged to charge during off-peak hours by offering modest incentives, such as lower prices. With significant added revenue and almost no added expense, utilities get a much smoother load profile, making the grid more reliable. Ratepayers get lower rates.

The extent to which EVs can be used to power non-automotive loads varies, and is described using a host of associated terms.⁶

Quite a few existing and proposed vehicles can export power.⁷ It is not the purpose here to definitively establish nomenclature, nor to catalog product offerings in such a rapidly evolving market. So let’s just call all bidirectional power capability V2L (vehicle-to-load), and emphasize that it already exists and is growing fast. As IEEE (formerly the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), SAE (the Society of Automotive Engineers), ISO (the International Organization for Standardization), and other bodies standardize hardware and related protocols, we can expect V2L to spread even faster.

Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck powering a construction site. © Ford Motor Company

With V2L, EVs’ potential as storage and dispatchable supply becomes at least as attractive as their dispatchable demand. Numerous companies are already enlisting EV owners to participate in virtual power plants, which will use the EVs’ batteries to completely replace gas-fired peaker plants, the most expensive power on the grid.⁸

Playing Well with the Other Children

As stated earlier, the grid is a community that facilitates resource sharing. But communities only work when everyone practices the kindergarten lessons of sharing and fairness.

For example, in the western North Carolina mountains (my home), electric demand peaks in the winter, and my net-zero PV system produces a summer surplus. But that overproduction isn’t wasted; the grid carries it to the piedmont of North and South Carolina, helping power the air conditioners that define summer peaks there. Conversely, a net-zero system in the piedmont might overproduce in winter, helping run my heat pump. Grid connectivity also allows ratepayers who can’t invest in PV to share in the benefits available to those who can, such as lower rates and greater reliability.

Storage tells a similar story. Duke Energy’s Lake Keowee / Jocassee / Bad Creek pumped storage hydroelectric facility in upstate South Carolina was built to absorb the excess off-peak output of the Oconee nuclear station. But it also buffers the intermittency of all other generators
on the grid, notably solar and wind.

Utility-owned batteries, located at the substation level in the distribution network and shared by all customers in that zone, could provide buffering with far fewer batteries than an equally capable array of independent, customer-owned systems. But the ALEC playbook pushed by most IOUs “encourages” individual, civic-minded customers to install (and fund) the batteries. Through punitive fees, inadequate reimbursement rates, and other sleight of hand, the same playbook seeks to create a system which lets utilities hoard all the benefits, just as it does with customer-owned generation.

A related dynamic is playing out with massive proposed expansions to support hyperscaled data centers for artificial intelligence (AI) and cryptocurrency operations. These investments are only necessary because of the projected new loads, but well-connected lobbyists for these uber-wealthy industries are seeking to push the expense into the rate base funded by all customers.

Overlanding (Leaving the Main Road)

Until recently, most ratepayers would have been forced to accept such unfairness, leaving only the IOUs to make the investments (the real goal of the subterfuge). But EVs with V2L are game changers. And there’s nothing like a disaster to put change in the spotlight.

When Hurricane Helene hit western North Carolina in September 2024, EVs did yeoman service. Some EVs have built-in AC plugs, both 120 and 240 volts.9 Over-the-counter adapters can turn the J1772 AC charging port on other EVs into a 120V AC outlet. Both approaches proved useful in running medical equipment, chainsaws, and other tools as people recovered from the storm. A friend and fellow EV advocate used a simple homebrewed inverter setup to run five refrigerator/freezers and a variety of other household appliances for a week, using only half the battery capacity of his Chevy Bolt (about 32 kWh, out of 64 total).

Post-Helene, generator sales in the area have increased markedly. But a typical generator costs $12,000, installed, and requires quite a bit of ongoing maintenance. Usually fueled from a methane line or a propane tank, and always loud, you only run it when you absolutely must. On the other hand, a PV system with modest battery backup is useful 365 days a year, with very low fuel costs, no noise, and almost no maintenance.

Most grid-tied PV systems lack batteries, mainly due to cost. Batteries also carry an environmental penalty, since they consume, rather than generate, electricity. The most productive way to build a flexible, reliable, environmentally optimal system is to have more customer-owned generation directly feeding the grid, with utilities building the bulk of the storage.

However, with memories of the hurricane (and wildfires or other disasters in other locations) still strong, many home PV owners are adding battery backup. Battery prices have fallen, and continue to fall, precipitously – 99% since the 1990s. Concurrently, punitive changes to net metering tariffs are leading many to consider a minimal battery pack to enable greater self-consumption and lower bills. But it’s a slippery slope.

If a microgrid can island itself for a few hours or days, the main impediment to staying off-grid permanently is the cost of the battery pack required for the most extreme sunless stretch, which only occurs every few years. But an EV with an average-sized battery can power an entire house for several sunless days, then drive to a power source and bring home a fresh load of electricity when its charge gets low. Even the most extreme case is covered, with no need for the hawk-eyed attention to consumption required in those off-grid homes described in early issues of Home Power.

People Get Ready (Just Get On Board)

Affordable energy is a luxury by world standards, but has become essential for life in developed countries. As with most necessities, freedom and democracy matter a lot in the energy arena. However financially viable it may become, defection from the grid by DG owners would be highly undesirable for society at large. But it’s a serious risk, given the way IOUs are resisting this evolution.^10,11

ALEC’s propaganda claims that penalizing DG owners protects less affluent ratepayers. But, as more PV owners defect, the grid’s fixed costs would be spread among fewer customers, leading to even more defections. Ultimately, only lower-wealth ratepayers would remain on-grid, and large amounts of extra capital would have been expended creating a socially undesirable electricity system (no longer a fully interconnected grid) that is neither economically nor environmentally optimal.

The electric grid of the near future will require significant up-front capital investment to realize the most cost-effective long-term solution. Storage and distributed rooftop solar will play an essential part in meeting those goals.¹² Fair tariffs and other protocols are essential to protect IOUs from the fate already experienced by landline telephone companies.

Any game must be fair to everyone playing to be sustainable. The rules of the electricity game are heavily influenced by the people in charge of utilities and utilities commissions. We must help them make the right choices.

“It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more.” – Marge Piercy (from “The low road”)

About the Author
Automotive engineer and ASES Life Member Dave Erb has developed vehicles using gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, alcohol, methane, electric, and hybrid electric powertrains. He wrote Chapter 1 of David Hrivnak’s “Driving to Net 0: Stories of Hope for a Carbon-Free Future,” a collection of 15 first-person accounts of families combining electric vehicles with solar houses and other sustainability strategies. He hasn’t bought gas
since 2019.

Sources:

1. tinyurl.com/2r5nc2ba
2. homepower.com
3. emp.lbl.gov/publications/putting-potential-rate-impacts
4. tinyurl.com/brookingsnet-metering
5. tinyurl.com/sciencedirect-solar
6. tinyurl.com/insideevs-v2g
7. tinyurl.com/insideevs-v2l
8. tinyurl.com/lazards-lcoe-june2025
9. tinyurl.com/ev-f150-vs-silverado
10. tinyurl.com/eei-disruptive-challenge
11. tinyurl.com/forbes-electric-utilities
12. tinyurl.com/pvmag-roadmap-grid-distributed
]]> https://ases.org/evs-and-the-grid-supporting-resilience-or-driving-defection/feed/ 0 https://ases.org/what-is-really-driving-californias-electricity-bills/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=what-is-really-driving-californias-electricity-bills https://ases.org/what-is-really-driving-californias-electricity-bills/#comments Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:35:46 +0000 https://ases.org/?p=24179 Continue reading "What Is Really Driving California’s Electricity Bills?"
]]> Californians are paying the second-highest residential electricity rates in the Country, and a popular explanation — that rooftop solar customers are shifting costs onto everyone else — has it backwards.¹ Bundled average rates in PG&E’s service territory rose from roughly $0.24 per kWh in 2018 to $0.37 per kWh in 2024 in real USD — an increase of about 52% in six years after accounting for inflation.² That trajectory is real, painful, and worth solving. But the data show that the principal drivers are wildfire-related capital spending, an aging long-distance transmission system, electric rate design flaws, and authorized utility returns³ — not the roughly 18 GW of customer-owned solar that Californians have installed since the early 2000s.⁴

This article explains how data and the law converge on two findings that lead to a single conclusion. First, the largest, fastest-growing components of Californians’ electric bills are utility capital costs — wildfire hardening, transmission expansion, and grid infrastructure — driven by forces unrelated to rooftop solar, and which distributed solar measurably helps to constrain by reducing peak transmission load and deferring infrastructure investment. Second, California’s rate-making framework — built for a one-way grid that no longer exists — neither credits the system benefits that customer owned solar delivers nor allocates costs and benefits fairly across ratepayer classes. Modernizing rate design, by unbundling the recovery of fixed grid infrastructure costs from the variable price of energy generation, is the structural fix. Together, these findings point to one conclusion: the most realistic path to affordability as electrification, EV charging, and data-center loads expand is to revisit our approach to rate design and to help many more Californians — especially renters, small businesses, and dense urban neighborhoods — own their own solar-energy supplies.

What is Actually Driving the Rate Increases

PG&E, California’s largest investor-owned utility (IOU), charged residential customers an average of $0.39 per kWh in June 2025.⁵ When economists, such as those at U.C. Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas, dissect the typical California residential rate, only about 12–15 cents per kWh reflects the competitive marginal cost of generating and delivering electricity.⁶ The remaining 25 cents or more covers fixed cost-recovery for capital projects, public-purpose programs, securitized wildfire claims, and authorized return on the utility’s investments.⁷ The California Public Advocates Office attributes roughly 21% of the rate — about $0.08 per kWh — to wildfire-related capital and operating costs, making them the single largest driver of recent rate increases.⁸

PG&E’s 2020 and 2023 General Rate Case decisions, together with separately recovered wildfire-cost memorandum accounts, authorize billions of dollars annually for vegetation management, system hardening, public safety power shutoffs, and undergrounding.⁹ PG&E’s 10,000-Mile Undergrounding Program alone has been projected at costs ranging from approximately $3 million per mile to nearly $6 million per mile, depending on terrain, urbanization, and contractor pricing.¹⁰

California’s liability framework intensifies that pressure. Under inverse condemnation as applied to IOUs, an electric utility can be held strictly liable for wildfire damage tied to its equipment even where no negligence is found.¹¹ Utilities have rationally responded by deploying as much capital as the CPUC will authorize.

Authorized capital earns a regulated return on equity, which as of the date of this report, is between 10.23% and 10.33% for the three California IOUs, and above the national average.¹² That return is paid on a rate base that has grown by more than 50% since 2018, but that far outpaces load growth, which has been essentially flat over the same period. Out of this dynamic has emerged the cost-shift claim: that net energy metering (NEM), California’s program of bill credits for energy solar customers’ exports to the grid, amounts to a subsidy running from lower-income, non-solar households to wealthier solar owners. It is the most repeated argument against solar ownership rights in the state. However, the myth fails under scrutiny.

A Closer Look at the Solar Cost-Shift Myth

The “cost shift argument” compares the retail credit that NEM customers receive for exported energy with a modeled “avoided cost” the utility would otherwise pay.¹³ The “cost shift” that comparison purports to measure is largely a mirage produced by California’s rate design itself — a design that picks and chooses how to load ratepayers with costs they should not bear and fails to recognize the benefits that distributed solar provides.

The standard avoided-cost calculation is structurally biased against solar in three ways analysts have repeatedly documented:

(a) The Avoided-Cost Calculator (ACC) that drives the California Public Utility Commission’s (CPUC’s) NEM cost-effectiveness analysis excludes documented benefits of distributed generation — avoided line losses, deferred transmission and distribution upgrades, locational capacity value during net-peak hours, and resilience benefits during Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events.¹⁴

(b) Rooftop solar reduces the same wildfire-related transmission build-out that drives most of the rate increase discussed above.¹⁵

(c) The calculation is sensitive to which year’s gas price, capacity-value methodology, and discount rate the analyst chooses.¹⁶

A deeper problem is that the purported “cost shift” occurring does not measure a transfer at all. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC’s) Powering Change report shows that the dynamic behind California’s rising electric rates is not solar customers receiving a benefit at someone else’s expense. It is the mechanics of how utilities recover their costs. NRDC’s analysis claims that today’s non-solar residential rates are approximately $0.07 per kWh higher than they would be without NEM, which is around 16% of California’s total residential IOU retail rate today; further, they state that $0.05 per kWh of that increase has occurred since 2018.¹⁷

Critically, NRDC characterizes that figure not as a payment from non-solar to solar customers, but as a rate-design construct: the consequence of behind-the-meter solar reducing IOU energy sales. It reflects the recovery of growing fixed costs on flat or decreasing demand by increasing rates, not a direct payment from one ratepayer to another.

That distinction matters. A “subsidy,” in ordinary usage, is “a benefit given by the government, or a public or private organization, to a person, business, or industry” requiring a direct, intentional transfer. What occurs with solar is a free-market outcome: utilities lose anticipated revenue when their customers generate some of their own electricity and sell the energy on the open grid. The compensation those customers receive for that solar energy is no more a “subsidy” extracted from the utility than the income a homeowner earns selling vegetables from a backyard garden at a farmers’ market is a “subsidy” extracted from the supermarket whose produce sales they displace. In both cases, the producer is paid for a good they grew or generated.

The comparison is also rigged by mismatched timeframes. The cost-shift figure is cumulative — the alleged share of the current residential bill accumulated across every NEM customer who has interconnected since 1997. The wildfire figure typically paired against it is a recent slice. Setting one against the other is like comparing the odometer reading of your car to the trip meter from this morning’s drive. Both are in miles. Neither tells you what the other does.

Compared on a consistent basis — recent against recent, or all-time against all-time — wildfire dominates by a wide margin.18 And the trajectories diverge from there. NEM 3.0, in effect since April 2023, sharply reduced export compensation for new entrants, structurally constraining NEM’s contribution to future rate growth. Wildfire spending has no such constraints.

Wildfire-related costs are the single largest driver of California’s residential rate increases. By any reasonable accounting, wildfire-related recovery is materially larger than NEM’s share of the residential bill, and the gap is widening as undergrounding capital, insurance premiums, and Wildfire Fund obligations continue to rise.¹⁹ The CPUC’s 2023 SB 695 report confirms that wildfire-related costs — mitigation, insurance, and liability — are the primary statewide driver of rate increases over the past decade. Solar customers, by reducing peak transmission load, are helping to mitigate the very wildfire-hardening build-out that drives those costs upward.²⁰



Finally, the cost-shift framing has a deeper problem than its arithmetic: it presumes there is a net cost to apportion in the first place. Once the offsetting benefits of distributed solar are credited, that premise collapses. A 2024 analysis found that existing solar customers collectively reduced costs for all California ratepayers by approximately $1.5 billion in a single year — through reduced peak grid demand, deferred transmission investment, and lower wholesale energy procurement.²¹

And looking towards the future, grid-optimization modeling predicts that a distributed clean-energy system will be $88 billion less expensive to build and operate than a centralized alternative because Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) reduce the infrastructure that the long-distance transmission system exists to carry.²²

The Historical – and Continuing – Cost Shift

The phrase “cost shift” has a much longer history in U.S. electric ratemaking than the present rooftop-solar debate. As Sharon Beder summarizes in Power Play, publicly owned utilities historically charged residential and commercial customers similar rates to industrial customers, while IOUs charged residential and commercial customers materially more to keep industrial rates competitive with the public-power neighbor next door.²³

In 1994, IOU residential customers paid 31% more per kWh than publicly-owned residential customers, while IOU industrial rates were the same as public-power industrial rates. The structural pattern: IOUs have been shifting ratepayer costs among other ratepayer classes long before rooftop solar.

Two further pieces of that historical pattern are visible in present-day California. First, ownership of the IOUs is concentrated among institutional investors, layered in multiple tiers of holding companies, and held by out-of-state hedge-fund stakeholders whose authorized return on equity is ultimately recovered from California ratepayers. Executive compensation at California’s largest investor-owned utilities (IOUs) is itself a cost of service that ratepayers ultimately pay. Most of it, base salary and cash incentives, is recovered as an operating expense in the utility’s revenue requirement, not through the authorized return on equity. Regulatory filings for fiscal year 2024 (reported in 2025) place IOU CEO pay among the highest in the nation. Sempra, the parent of SDG&E and SoCalGas, paid CEO Jeffrey Martin $21.5 million, ranking him the third highest-paid utility executive in the country.²⁴ PG&E paid CEO Patricia Poppe $15.8 million with $1.4 million in base salary plus $11.7 million in stock awards and other compensation. Edison International, parent of Southern California Edison, paid CEO Pedro Pizarro $13.8 million.²⁵ The trend has continued: an April 2026 report shows utility CEO pay rose 16% in 2025, with Poppe at $19.8 million and Pizarro at $16.5 million.²⁶

Second, every dollar of rate base financed at a return is a dollar of revenue requirement that non-solar and solar customers alike pay to capital. In that real and quantifiable sense, all retail customers — including non-solar customers — are continuously “subsidizing” investor returns by billions of dollars per year.

True Competition Means Customer Ownership

California’s 1996–2001 restructuring experiment is often cited as proof that “deregulation” failed. But that experiment did not let households or small businesses own their own electricity supply. It merely substituted competition among large generators for competition among utilities, while leaving the customer in the same passive role.²⁷

Genuine competition for the customer means letting the customer own the means of production when doing so is technically and economically feasible. Regulating concentrated, capital-intensive generation and transmission assets is appropriate; restricting an individual household, school, farm, or warehouse from producing and storing its own clean electricity is not.

The cost basis behind this conclusion is structural. Self-generated solar electricity is priced to the customer at the equipment cost and financed at consumer-loan rates, without an authorized return on capital, holding-company overhead, or executive compensation recovery.

Each kilowatt-hour purchased from an IOU, by contrast, includes the utility’s authorized return on rate base, corporate overhead, and the share of fixed-cost recovery identified in the preceding section. The savings are not theoretical.

The mechanisms to provide these savings are not novel — they are already in operation, at varying scales, in California and in other jurisdictions: fast track permitting, community solar programs, virtual net metering for multifamily housing, public-sector rooftop programs serving schools and warehouses, and successor tariffs that preserve cost-effective payback periods for solar installations.
Scaling those mechanisms is itself the most direct equity response, extending solar’s economic and resilience benefits to renters, multifamily residents, schools, small businesses, and dense urban neighborhoods that have historically been locked out of solar ownership.

Conclusion

California’s electricity rate increase problem is real, and so is the search for someone to hold accountable. But the data point unambiguously toward failed utility rate structuring and IOU capital spending — driven by wildfire liability, authorized returns, and a long-distance transmission system that customer-sited generation actually relieves — as the dominant causes.

California’s solar customers are not the source of the affordability crisis; the distributed solar industry is the most rapidly deployable, customer-aligned piece of the affordability solution. Stronger policies and regulations are needed to untap the ability to expand solar ownership opportunities, especially for renters, multifamily households, small businesses, and historically excluded communities.

A structural solution is rate-design reform. If California unbundled the fixed costs of grid infrastructure from the variable cost of energy generation — rather than recovering both through a single volumetric per-kWh charge — infrastructure costs allocated to ratepayers would decline over time, because distributed resources reduce the very build-out those costs recover, and energy generation would be priced on free-market terms in which distributed generation competes on level footing with utility-scale supply. As long as rates remain bundled and grid infrastructure remains privately held by IOUs whose authorized returns depend on volumetric sales, the conflict between utility shareholder interests and solar system owners will continue to shape every rate-making proceeding.

It is time to double down on policies that expand solar ownership rights not only as the best course for the environment, but also as the best course for the economic interests of all ratepayers.

About the Authors
Angela Lipanovich is a clean energy attorney with more than twenty years of experience advising clean energy companies and the customers they serve. She founded Estriatus Law, co-founded SolarWAVE Action, and previously served as General Counsel to a publicly traded solar company. She has helped shape key policy decisions protecting solar ownership rights and is a long-standing member and former Board member of the American Solar Energy Society (ASES).

Jenny Folkesson, Ph.D., is Executive Director and co-founder of SolarWAVE Action. A computer scientist trained at the University of Copenhagen, she brings two decades of experience in data science and machine learning, including image analysis at the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub. Her work centers on clean energy data analysis and the use of open-source code and data to support climate solutions and coastal and marine conservation.

]]> https://ases.org/what-is-really-driving-californias-electricity-bills/feed/ 1 https://ases.org/driving-on-sunshine-a-primer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=driving-on-sunshine-a-primer https://ases.org/driving-on-sunshine-a-primer/#respond Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:24:13 +0000 https://ases.org/?p=24138 Continue reading "Driving on Sunshine: A Primer"
]]> Fossil fuels brought us modern life. Coal jumpstarted the industrial revolution. More recently, oil and gas greatly advanced mobility and revolutionized agriculture. But today, fossil fuels are at the center of wars, major environmental damage, income inequality, and a host of other ills. It’s way past time to retire them. We can start the process with three data points and one simple calculation.

Think Globally, Act Personally

Fossil fuel interests exert inordinate control over the world’s economies and politics, so much of the transition will fall to individuals. Transportation, representing 27% of U.S. energy consumption, with roughly half of that going to light duty vehicles,¹ offers some of the lowest hanging fruit. Four steps can help propel us forward:

1. Reduce demand for motorized travel, by replacing some motion with forethought. Examples would include telecommuting, trip consolidation, or moving closer to one’s workplace.
2. Use vehicles more productively, by better matching vehicle size to payload size. Downsizing to a smaller vehicle is one way to accomplish this, carpooling is another.
3. Electrify vehicle powertrains, to the maximum extent allowed by the vehicles’ use cases.
4. Generate electricity renewably.

It’s important to rebut the mistaken argument that we shouldn’t buy electric vehicles (EVs, step 3) before we fully green the grid (step 4). In fact, each step represents immediate progress, today, even if taken in isolation. For details, see the Union of Concerned Scientists’ excellent analysis.² However, to the extent that there might be a correct order, it’s as shown. Conservation enables technology. Steps 1 and 2 are pure conservation steps. Step 3, vehicle electrification, incorporates both technology and significant conservation. Step 4 is purely technological.

None of these actions require permission. Neither OPEC, nor the president, nor anyone else has veto power. The only barrier for many people is sufficient confidence in their ability to approach steps 3 and 4 wisely.

The Difference Between Energy and Power

Though often conflated, energy and power are two distinct things. Energy is the ability to do work. Engineers and scientists have a very specific, mathematical definition of work, but it’s irrelevant here. Suffice it to say that, if doing something manually could cause you to sweat, there’s work involved.

Power is the rate at which energy is transferred or, stated another way, the speed at which work is done. If we think of energy as a substance, like water, then power is the flow rate, how fast we’re pumping the water.

Work and energy have dimensions of force times distance: Newton-meters (Nm) in SI units. To distinguish energy from torque, we call a Nm of energy a Joule (J). Power is the amount of energy transferred divided by the time it took to transfer it, Joules per second (J/s), which we call watts (W).

We distinguish size ranges using prefixes. A typical cell phone charger transfers electrical energy at a rate of about 5 W. A kilowatt (kW) is 1000 W; a lawnmower, running at full throttle, does work at a rate of about 3 kW (4 horsepower). A megawatt (MW) is 1000 kW; a railroad locomotive, running at full throttle, does work at about 3 MW. A gigawatt (GW) is 1000 MW; a modern nuclear reactor generates electricity at about 1 GW.

Since power is energy divided by time, energy is power multiplied by time: one Joule is equal to one watt-second. Measuring electrical energy is hard, but measuring electrical power is fairly easy, so utilities measure power (kW), multiply by the time the power was drawn (hours, h), add it all up at the end of the month, and bill customers for energy in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Depending on the size of the numbers, we might also express energy in watt-hours (Wh).

What does the Difference Make? (PV Edition)

People buy photovoltaic (PV) systems to produce energy (kWh). They are often sized in terms of power (W, kW). For comparison’s sake, it can be useful to think about the price of PV systems in $/watt. PV output varies with the sun’s brightness. Panels are rated by their electrical output under “peak” sun, defined as 1000 watts of light power per square meter. Actual light input depends on location, weather, and time of day and year. Additionally PV panel orientation, comprising tilt (angle above the horizontal) and azimuth (compass direction the panel faces), is also important. Some panels are on fixed mounts, others on trackers which vary the orientation to follow the sun.

Considering these factors, the amount of sunshine that hits the panel during a given time period can be expressed in “peak sun hours,” the number of hours of full noontime sun that would result in the same amount of light hitting the panel.

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (formerly NREL) has compiled extensive data on the solar resource across the United States, and programmed them into a calculator incorporating panel type and orientation to provide a month-by-month estimate of PV output in any given location. This calculator, called PVWatts, is online, and quite intuitive to use.³



2015 Chevy Spark EV listing from fueleconomy.gov. © Oak Ridge National Laboratory

To estimate peak sun hours, the PVWatts user can input data for a one kW system. The resulting energy output in kWh is numerically equal to the number of full sun hours for that location.

What Difference does the Difference Make? (EV Edition)

The power of an EV’s motor (or an internal combustion vehicle’s engine) directly impacts its dynamic performance: acceleration, top speed, gradability (the combination of speed and slope the vehicle can maintain while climbing), and towing capacity. When charging, the electrical power input (usually stated in kW) and the vehicle’s energy intensity (measured for our purposes in Wh/mile) combine to determine charging speed, the miles of range replenished for each hour spent charging.

Energy intensity can be found on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel economy website.4 However, EPA’s numbers require some massage. Mileage values for the Combined, City, and Highway cycles of the standard fuel economy test are shown in “equivalent miles per gallon.” MPGe relates all energy consumption, regardless of fuel, to the amount of energy in standard unleaded gasoline, 33.7 kWh per gallon. To turn mileage in MPGe into the corresponding energy intensity in Wh/mi, divide it into 33,700. Conversely, we can turn energy intensity in Wh/mi into MPGe by dividing it into 33,700.

EPA also provides Combined cycle energy intensity numbers in kWh/100 miles. To convert these into Wh/mi, simply multiply by 10. Combined cycle energy intensity for 2025-26 EVs lies between 230 Wh/mi (146 MPGe) and 720 Wh/mi (47 MPGe). Unlike combustion vehicles, City cycle consumption is lower than Highway for EVs. Coupled with the energy intensity, battery energy capacity (typically expressed in kWh) determines range, the distance the vehicle can travel on a charge.

The Final Countdown

Finding the PV capacity needed to charge the EV requires three data points: vehicle energy intensity (Wh/mi), annual vehicle miles traveled, and annual full sun hours at the site. Multiply energy intensity by vehicle miles traveled, then divide by full sun hours to get the amount of PV required (in W).

Using 1,400 full sun hours per year (the ten year average measured at my family’s home in Asheville, NC), 185 Wh/mi (the five year average for our Chevy Spark EV), and 6,000 mi/yr (our typical usage of the Spark), we see that the Spark consumed the output of 793 W, 13 percent of our 6 kW PV system.

Though these are real world numbers, this result is anomalously low, shown here to illustrate the danger of relying on anecdotal data. My wife and I are experienced EV drivers; our driving style tends to maximize range. Asheville is a very compact town, which minimizes the total miles traveled and maximizes the city portion of those miles. And the Spark was one of two EVs in our garage; the other one took the road trips.

EPA rates the Spark EV at 280 Wh/mi (119 MPGe) on the Combined cycle. The average American drives about 15,000 mi/yr. Using these numbers, the Spark would require the output of 3,000 W of PV, half of our 6 kW system. Driving style and distance traveled both matter. EV owners who already know their actual consumption can use that number in the calculation. The best approach for everyone else is to use the EPA Combined cycle number, because the EPA test is highly repeatable, and the Combined cycle is the best estimate of “average” U.S. driving. But nobody is actually average; we’re all above or below average. If you have a heavy right foot, or if you’d like to build a little cushion into your calculation, using the EPA Highway figure will provide a more conservative estimate.

Why Not Put the PV on the EV?

As the owner of two cars with license plates that misspell “solar car,” I get frequent pushback about the lack of solar panels on either. My panels are on the roof of my house, where they’re always properly oriented and never shaded; and on the grid, where there’s always a useful place for their output to go, even when the batteries are full. They add no weight or aerodynamic drag to the cars, and are unaffected by the brutal shock and vibration cars endure. They’re precisely where they belong.

Though permanently mounting PV

on an EV is unlikely to make sense, changes to net metering protocols, driven by fossil fuel shills in state legislatures, may change the cost equation enough to make an off-grid combination of PV and EV attractive. Declining hardware costs have already made EVs an effective source of backup power. Whether with auto manufacturer-approved systems or with simple homebrewed inverter setups, several of my neighbors put their EVs to useful (indeed, lifesaving) service during 2024’s Hurricane Helene. We’ll see a lot more of this V2L (vehicle-to-load) activity in the future. But that’s a topic for another article.

Low Hanging Fruit

Driving on sunshine is cleaner, quieter, and more pleasant than burning dead dinosaurs. It can save a lot of cash and insulate drivers from inflation. It keeps money in the community, and out of the hands of petrostate despots. And it’s ripe for the picking.

About the Author
Automotive engineer and ASES Life Member Dave Erb has developed vehicles using gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, alcohol, natural gas, electric, and hybrid electric powertrains. He and his wife live in a beyond net zero house, and haven’t bought gas since 2019.

Sources:

1. tinyurl.com/eia-transportation-energy
2. tinyurl.com/ucs-blog-drive-electric
3. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php
4. https://fueleconomy.gov
]]> https://ases.org/driving-on-sunshine-a-primer/feed/ 0 https://ases.org/the-evolution-of-commercial-solar-lessons-from-discontinued-solar-brands/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-evolution-of-commercial-solar-lessons-from-discontinued-solar-brands https://ases.org/the-evolution-of-commercial-solar-lessons-from-discontinued-solar-brands/#respond Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:13:48 +0000 https://ases.org/?p=24133 Continue reading "The Evolution of Commercial Solar: Lessons from Discontinued Solar Brands"
]]> The solar industry’s rapid evolution is a story of innovation, fierce competition, and dramatic exits. As countries have moved toward decarbonization and grown the share of renewable energy in the total energy mix, the commercial solar panel sector has seen both meteoric rises and sudden declines among its most prominent brands. The major implication? Supporting the growth of today’s solar after-market by replacing discontinued solar panel brands near the end of their useful life.

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
– Thomas Edison

Solar Light to Electricity Conversion

The sunlight that hits a square foot of any surface carries 127 watts of energy. The ideal solar panel would convert 100% of this energy into electricity.

The history of commercial use of solar energy began in the mid-20th century when Bell Labs introduced the first practical silicon photovoltaic (PV) cell, boasting a then-revolutionary 6% efficiency. By the late 1950s, companies like Hoffman Electronics had pushed efficiencies to 14%, sparking commercial interest and laying the groundwork for the solar industry’s future. In 2025, solar panel efficiency continued to break new ground – LONGi launched a solar panel with a remarkable 33% efficiency in their large-area (260.9 cm²) crystalline silicon-perovskite two-terminal tandem solar cell. These efficiency gains not only demonstrate the technical feasibility of solar power but also ignite commercial and governmental interest, setting the stage for the industry’s further development.

From Pioneering Innovation to Global Expansion

The 1970s energy crisis marked a turning point. Governments and corporations, eager for alternatives to fossil fuels, accelerated solar R&D. ARCO Solar emerged as a trailblazer, becoming the first company to produce one megawatt of PV modules in a single year by 1980. Meanwhile, Japanese firms such as Sharp and Kyocera established themselves as global leaders, driving advancements in efficiency and reliability.

The 1990s saw a surge in investment, with brands like SolarWorld facilitating the adoption of crystalline silicon panels across Europe. In the United States, initiatives like the “One Million Solar Roofs” program further fueled demand for commercial solar solutions.



ARCO solar panel. © Museum of Solar

Market Shifts and the Fall of Industry Icons

The 2000s ushered in a new era of innovation, with thin-film technologies and high-efficiency modules from companies like First Solar and SunPower. This period also saw the rise of Chinese manufacturing, which dramatically lowered costs and intensified global competition.

By the 2010s, many established brands struggled to adapt. BP Solar, a committed player since the 1980s, exited the market in 2011. Solyndra, once celebrated for its unique cylindrical panels, filed for bankruptcy the same year amid unsustainable production costs. Other notable departures included Evergreen Solar, Schott Solar, and SolarWorld—each leaving a legacy of technological advancement and market expansion.

Remembering the Brands that Shaped the Industry

Despite their market exits, these discontinued brands made significant contributions to the solar industry. BP Solar was instrumental in advancing crystalline silicon technology and helped establish early commercial markets. Solyndra’s innovative cylindrical solar panels, though commercially unsuccessful, demonstrated the potential for alternative PV designs. Evergreen Solar contributed to cost reduction initiatives and manufacturing process improvements.



Ad for Bell Telephone System.

The list of discontinued solar panel brands is long and storied, featuring names such as Uni-Solar, HelioVolt, and Abound Solar, etc. Their experiences offer valuable lessons on the importance of innovation, adaptability, and strategic foresight in a rapidly changing market. Bluewater, a leading USA second-life solar equipment player, posted the full list of discontinued solar panel brands and their years in service.¹

The exit of these major players created both challenges and opportunities in the solar industry.

The After-Market Opportunity: A New Chapter for Solar

As more legacy panels reach the end of their service lives, the need to replace discontinued brands supports the after-market for solar components. Many solar consumers will be looking to source older components to match their array.

According to a recent Wood Mackenzie report, the U.S.now boasts north of 248 GW of installed solar PV capacity,² with over half a billion solar panels currently in operation.

As more panels approach the end of their 25–30 year lifespan, or are proactively replaced as part of preventive maintenance plans, the demand for solar panel replacements is growing.

In 2025 alone, the U.S. market saw tens of millions of panels replaced, and with the total installed solar capacity having grown nearly 100x since 2010, the need for replacements is expected to double each year for the next decade. Custom-sourcing matching solar panels increases utilization of idle equipment, and allows the continued performance of existing solar installations without a major overhaul.

Full list of discontinued solar panel brands: bluewaterbattery.com/discontinued-solar.

About the Author
Max Khabur is a Director of Marketing
at Bluewater, one of the U.S. leading operators in the second-life solar equipment and battery market. Formerly Max led marketing at OneCharge Lithium Batteries, and was elected Chairman of the Advanced Energy Council, representing a group of companies – members of the MHI.org (Materials Handling Industry) Association.

Sources:

1. https://www.bluewaterbattery.com/discontinued-solar
2. “US Solar Market Insight: 2024 year in review” published by Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
]]> https://ases.org/the-evolution-of-commercial-solar-lessons-from-discontinued-solar-brands/feed/ 0 https://ases.org/east-west-vs-south-facing-solar-when-more-panels-beats-perfect-direction/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=east-west-vs-south-facing-solar-when-more-panels-beats-perfect-direction https://ases.org/east-west-vs-south-facing-solar-when-more-panels-beats-perfect-direction/#respond Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:00:14 +0000 https://ases.org/?p=24123 Continue reading "East–West vs. South-Facing Solar: When “More Panels” Beats “Perfect Direction”"
]]> If you ask ten solar professionals how to orient a rooftop array in the Northern Hemisphere, most will answer the same way: face it south. And for many projects, that remains a solid default. A south-facing array typically squeezes the most energy out of each panel.

But on many commercial roofs, and especially on flat rooftops, the real constraint is not the sun. It is space.

When roof area is limited, the question becomes: What layout lets you install the most space-efficient solar capacity within budget on the available area? In those scenarios, an east–west (E–W) layout can outperform a south-facing layout. The South layout may be “better positioned”, but the E-W allows the installation of more panels in the same area.

This article walks through when an E-W configuration makes sense, using a straightforward roof example and five case studies across the U.S.

A Quick Clarification: What We are Comparing

Before the numbers, it helps to define what “better positioned” means:

• South-facing fixed tilt at optimal inclination often maximizes energy per panel.
• E-W at low fixed tilt often maximizes power per available area.

The Two Conditions where East–West Shines

East–West is not a replacement for south-facing arrays in every situation. The advantage tends to show up when both conditions apply:

• You are working on a flat surface. This includes flat roofs (such as malls, warehouses, office buildings, apartments, and houses), flat canopies with space constraints, and potentially floating PV platforms, such as those on ponds or reservoirs.
• The tilt angle is low: from 5° to 10.° Low-tilt arrays are commonly used on flat roofs because they can reduce wind uplift forces and minimize row-to-row shading.

Low tilt is common on flat roofs for practical reasons:

• It reduces the uplift load and helps manage wind-related structural requirements.
• It can reduce row-to-row shading constraints because the array sits lower.
• It can simplify roof loading strategies when using ballast systems.

When those two conditions are present, east-west layouts often allow tighter packing, meaning a higher power density. Also, on a space-limited roof, higher power density can translate into stronger project economics.

A Simple Roof Example (4,290 sqf)

To illustrate this trade-off, consider a flat surface measuring 4,290 square feet (sq ft) with the goal of installing as much solar capacity as is practical.

Option A is a conventional design approach that would use a south-facing ballast-mounted system. Using 450-watt modules at a 10° tilt, this surface can accommodate 120 panels, resulting in a 54 kW DC system.

Option B is an E-W configuration using the same 450-watt modules. With an 8° tilt (the same angle used by the same manufacturer for the South example), the same surface can fit 152 panels, for a total of 68.4 kW DC.

What Changed?

The roof did not get bigger. The type of module did not change. What changed is the layout efficiency.

In this example, the east–west configuration increases installed capacity from 54.0 kW to 68.4 kW, a 27% increase in capacity on the same footprint. That is the core advantage: more watts installed per square foot, which will generate more energy.

What Does that Mean for Energy Production?

To understand how this plays out, five case studies were evaluated using NREL’s PVWatts tool, assuming a 0.5% annual module degradation rate. The locations were chosen to represent a range of U.S. climates:

• Orlando, Florida
• Bakersfield, California
• Malta, New York
• Seattle, Washington
• Lincoln, Nebraska



As expected, the east–west systems produce more energy in every location, not because they are more efficient per panel, but because they are larger systems on the same roof. Of course, if you can install the same amount of PV modules facing south, you will get higher energy generation than the E-W, but can you install more?

The more important question, however, is whether that additional production justifies the cost.

Installed Cost: More Capacity Does Not Always Mean Higher Cost

Estimated installed costs were calculated for each system, accounting for typical regional labor rates and site-specific structural requirements.

Structural costs vary by location. High-wind regions, such as Orlando (design wind speeds up to 137 mph), and heavy-snow areas, such as Malta, New York which can reach up to 76 pounds per square feet (psf), increase racking and ballast requirements. These factors affect both layouts, though E-W systems can sometimes distribute loads more efficiently.



Option A (left): South-facing ballast system, tilt angle 10,° 120x450W PV modules. Option B (right): E-W facing ballast system, tilt angle 8,° 152x450W PV modules. © Baker Makarem

The electrical scope, often the source of unforeseen challenges during construction, was assumed to be similar for both cases.

A Helpful Metric: Cost per Installed kW peak ($/ kWp)

This metric helps answer: How much solar capacity do you get for each dollar invested?

Across these five cases, the east–west configuration averages about 16% lower cost per installed kilowatt than the south-facing layout, with some locations showing differences as low as 23%.



For example, with a $20k budget in Seattle, a south-facing layout would allow for up to 11.69 kWp of installed capacity, producing about 11,228 kWh in the first year.

With the same budget using an east–west configuration, you could install up to 13.69 kWp of PV, with an estimated annual production of 12,074 kWh.

Payback and ROI: Where the Comparison Becomes Real

Payback Period. Payback refers to how long it takes for the system’s savings (from electricity generated) to recover the initial investment.

The analysis for the city of Orlando assumes an electricity price of $0.11 per kWh and a 6% annual increase in electricity rates. The east–west system reaches payback sooner than the south-facing system, reflecting its higher production and lower cost per kilowatt.



Payback time in years, Orlando, FL. © Baker Makarem

A shorter payback also leaves more financial margin over the system’s life to cover capital expenses, such as inverter replacements.

Return on Investment (ROI). This is another metric to consider, which measures net savings vs. investment. Across the 5 scenarios, the ROI ranged between 130% to 252%. These values can vary depending on expenses during the 20-year estimated lifespan of the system.

The message is consistent: in these examples, east–west layouts deliver stronger ROI because they install more capacity per roof area and typically do so at a lower cost per kilowatt, with higher energy production, compared to what can be installed facing south.

A Few Important Considerations

These exercises were intentionally simplified to focus on layout trade-offs. Several real-world factors can change outcomes:

• Savings were calculated without rebates or incentives. Which is, in some aspect, a better perspective, since the Federal Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is no longer available.
• For commercial projects, depreciation treatment can shorten payback periods and increase ROI.
• Operations and maintenance costs were not modelled in detail. While these systems will incur maintenance expenses over a 20-year lifespan, the overall profitability remains strong.
• It is also worth noting that east–west arrays often produce a broader daily generation profile, with more output in the morning and late afternoon. In markets with time-of-use pricing and demand charges, this flatter production curve can add additional value.

Takeaways

East–west solar configurations are not a replacement for south-facing systems, but they can be more profitable in the right scenarios.

They tend to perform best when:

• The surface is flat (common in commercial buildings)
• The design uses low tilt angles (5° to 10°)
• Roof area is the primary concern

These conditions are common in commercial buildings, warehouses, and increasingly in floating PV systems. As floating solar continues to develop, east–west layouts may play an important role in maximizing energy output per available surface.

Sometimes, the best solar design is not about chasing the perfect angle, but about making the most of the space you have.

About the Authors
Baker Makarem is a Mechanical Engineer and NABCEP-certified ESIP, PVIP, and PVSI. He is the founder of Bakertech, a company specialized in the photovoltaic (PV) and energy storage systems (ESS) industry. He has been in the renewable energy field since 2017.

Carla Monzer previously worked as a marketing consultant in a global market research firm providing consumer, industry, and market intelligence. She is currently a PhD student in Marketing at the University of South Florida. Her research interests focus on sustainability, with particular attention to renewable energy and its interaction with consumer behavior.

]]> https://ases.org/east-west-vs-south-facing-solar-when-more-panels-beats-perfect-direction/feed/ 0